View Full Version : Citizens United consequences

01-10-2012, 03:46 PM
I really did not expect there to be serious unintended consequences of Citizens United, to tell you the truth. But I must admit that I'm happy to see it opening the door to such blatant abuse of the airwaves that even the sheep are noticing.

Now let's think of what some of the further unintended consequences of this could be.

1. People will be so disgusted that they will lobby their congresspeople to "do something".
2. People will turn the TV off and move to the internet for their information. Netflix will explode into a Fortune 500 country.
3. Further polarization of the populace will result as people seek information online that only addresses problems from their already set perspectives.
4. The populace will largely simply stop paying any attention at all.
5. Sports will keep people watching tv until it's the only place where the political ads are to be seen.
6. Some smart entrepreneur will figure out how to switch off the sound and image when ads come on TV thus eliminating the reason for ads entirely.
7. If the carpet advertising is permitted to continue for a couple years there will rise up a desire to eliminate political advertising entirely. It will take at a minimum that long to get Senator Sanders' amendment through the entire process.
8. The FCC will step in and break up the biggest broadcast networks, thus aggravating the cost of taking advantage of Citizens United so that it bankrupts the primary funders.

More ideas?

01-10-2012, 05:55 PM
The primary complaint against the ruling was that commercial corporations would enter the political fray; which was largely an absurd expectation. Has that happened?

If on the other hand, political organizations are formed as corporations and ex resizing free speech corporately; I say yeah!!! You should not have to be rich to practice effective free speech.

01-10-2012, 06:15 PM
The primary complaint against the ruling was that commercial corporations would enter the political fray; which was largely an absurd expectation. Has that happened?

If on the other hand, political organizations are formed as corporations and ex resizing free speech corporately; I say yeah!!! You should not have to be rich to practice effective free speech.

since they don't have to release the source of the money you don't know where it's coming from. But, I'm pretty sure my next door neighbor isn't investing any of his millions. :)

01-10-2012, 06:33 PM
Super PACs (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2010), a new breed of political action committee that may raise unlimited sums of money to fuel political advertisements known as independent expenditures, are subject to one major condition: they must disclose their donors.
Or are they?
Federal Election Commission rules allow super PACs to legally avoid disclosing individual donors by attributing donations to nonprofit organizations, which are not required by law to reveal their donors.
During the 2010 election cycle, five super PACs utilized this little-used route, attributing all or nearly all of their contributions to nonprofit organizations organized with the Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c)(4) or section 501(c)(6) of the U.S. tax code.Most of these non-profit groups are directly affiliated with the super PACs to which they donated money.
These five super PACs are:

New Power PAC, which attributed 88 percent—$103,500—of its $118,000 in receipts to Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, the 501(c)(4) group that formed the super PAC.
ProgressOhio, which attributed essentially all of its funds to the 501(c)(4) nonprofit ProgressOhio.org.
Environment Colorado Action Fund, which received about 99 percent of its funding from Environment Colorado, a 501(c)(4) organization.
Protecting America’s Retirees lists essentially all donations as coming from the Alliance for Retired Americans, another 501(c)(4) nonprofit group.
National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund attributes 100 percent of its funding to the 501(c)(6) trade association that shares its name.

While these super PACs are avoiding having to reveal the actual people, corporations, or unions that are contributing to them, they are doing nothing illegal.

Keith Wilson
01-10-2012, 07:37 PM
. . . other than from non-profits Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

You underestimate the creativity of those who want to hide donations. Big money in politics is now effectively anonymous.

01-10-2012, 07:41 PM
After donating to Gingrich Super PAC, casino magnate plans to give more to defeat Obama
By NBC's Michael Isikoff
Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson agreed to cut a $5-million check to the Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich's campaign late last week as a "last act of loyalty" to an old friend. But Adelson plans to spend many millions more than that -- no matter the eventual GOP nominee -- to defeat President Obama, two close associates tells NBC News.
One of the associates said that Adelson's contributions to the anti-Obama cause may be greater "by a factor of five" than the donation he made last Friday. That suggests he may give as much as $25 million to GOP Super PACs gearing up to run attack TV ads against Obama.
"This is about a 20-year friendship with Newt," said one associate, who asked not to be identified but who has participated in discussions about the $5-million contribution Adelson made to Winning Our Future, the pro-Gingrich Super PAC. "He wanted to do something to help his friend who needs his help."
"But in his mind, whatever fallout there comes from this will be more than made up by the support he brings to the table" for the fall campaign, the associate added. "He has made clear he'll spend whatever it takes to defeat Barack Obama and support whoever is the nominee."
Adelson "agonized over" the contribution, said a second source close to the casino magnate, in part because he knew that Mitt Romney's campaign would be "pissed."
But Adelson understood that "Newt's got to perform well" in South Carolina and "in a time of need, he felt he had an obligation to help his friend," the second source said.
The $5-million donation by Adelson is the largest known donation yet to so-called "Super PACs"-- groups that can take unlimited funds from wealthy donors and corporations. It dramatically illustrates the outside role that billionaire donors are having in shaping the GOP race.
After receiving the money from Adelson on Friday, Winning Our Future immediately made a $3.4 million ad buy in South Carolina in order to run blistering attacks on Romney's record as chief executive of Bain Capital, accusing him of reaping millions of dollars in profits by buying up companies and shutting down their factories. The ads will be based on clips from a 27-minute film, "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town," that describes the GOP front-runner as a "predatory corporate raider."
Whether Adelson's contributions for the presidential race reach $25 million, or even exceed that, there is little question he has the resources to make such donations. The 77-year-old chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. -- who personally owns more than 40% of the stock of the international gambling firm -- is currently ranked as the eighth-richest American by Forbes Magazine, with a net worth of $21.5 billion.
A longtime generous GOP donor, he has been especially close to Gingrich, having given the former speaker's political organization more than $7 million in the last five years and making one of his jets available to fly Gingrich around the country to speaking engagements.
Adelson is also controversial: He has been involved in ferocious battles with labor unions in Las Vegas over his efforts to build non-union casinos. His worldwide gambling firm is currently under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly paying bribes to Chinese officials to secure a casino license in Macau. (The firm has adamantly denied the charges and said they stem from unfounded allegations made by a "disgruntled former employee.")
He is also a staunch backer of Israel and owns a newspaper in that country -- a publication that has featured Gingrich on its front page. After Gingrich recently stirred controversy by saying the Palestinians were an "invented" people," Adelson rushed to his defense telling a pro-Israeli group, "Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians and you will see why" Gingrich said what he did.
Ron Reese, a spokesman for Las Vegas Sands, declined to comment on Adelson's contribution on Monday.

The first Adelson associate acknowledged he was surprised to see that Adelson's money is being used to fund ads based on the film about Romney and Bain Capital. The movie features interviews with workers who lost their jobs and had their homes foreclosed allegedly because of Bain Capital's actions aimed at boosting the profits of the companies.
Adelson's own fights with union workers in Las Vegas -- and boost his own company's profits -- become so fierce that he was forced to retain full time security because of threats he received from the workers whose jobs were being jeopardized, the associate said.

Keith Wilson
01-10-2012, 07:48 PM
Disclosure rules weren't set by the Supremes.No, but the decision removed limits on the amount of money that can be donated anonymously.

Keith Wilson
01-10-2012, 08:11 PM
Yep, common millionaires on an equal footing.

01-10-2012, 08:22 PM
Yep, common millionaires on an equal footing.

give him a break, he's doing the best he can with some very bad material

David W Pratt
01-11-2012, 01:36 PM
I get most of my news and entertainment here in The Bilge, nice balanced journalism and no attack ads, attacks, yes, but no attack ads.